Here is the Church, and There Go the Steeples

Yesterday Sheepshead Bites had a post on a story it’s been tracking concerning how the current congregation of the church at 3087 Ocean Avenue intends to tear down the steeples on its 142-year-old building. An organization called the Bay Improvement Group (BIG) is advocating for their retention and tried at one point to convince the church’s owners to pursue landmark status: “We at BIG tried in the early 1990â€²s pleading with their Board of Directors/Trustees to Landmark the Church and they were sadly, ignorantly afraid of ‘Landmark status’ even though we tried to persuade them with experts in Church preservation, Engineers & Architects and myself, as an Attorney, to explain the great help they would have in obtaining Landmark status. They could have received State, City, Federal and private grants to restore the Church!” Today The Daily Newspicks up on the story, and has a quote from the church’s pastor about how the steeples are unsafe and the congregation can’t afford to renovate them: “‘We are concerned really about safety,’ said Pastor Jay Kyung Kim, who said the spires are cracked and leaning precariously. ‘If it falls down, it’s a tragedy.’ He hopes to eventually raise the cash to build new steeples, but has no idea how long that will take.” Sad stuff.BIG Pleads For Savior Of Methodist Church [Sheepshead Bites]Historic Steeples of 142-Year-Old United Methodist Church Will be Torn Down [NY Daily News]Photo from Sheepshead Bites.

0 Comment

No offense, but “landmark status” isn’t exactly the greatest thing in the world when you’re trying to repair a very old building. Any idea that the parishioners at this church don’t give a damn about the historic nature of the steeples or whatever is totally absurd.

The people who look at churches and go, Oh, how nice, and then pass by without doing anything else are the LAST people who should be commenting on how churches should run their business. Stay the f out. I am highly suspicious of anyone who puts their two cents in without knowing the struggles of dealing with church house issues.

If neither the pastor nor the congregation care enough about the building to save it, no other entity can help them. If they wanted to raise the funds, I’m pretty sure they could have done so. I don’t think repairing these relatively small wooden towers would be a major opus.
The pastor probably is longing for a new church building and figures that once the steeples go, it will be much easier to sell the community on a brand-new shiny concrete church.

“We at BIG tried in the early 1990â€²s pleading with their Board of Directors/Trustees to Landmark the Church and they were sadly, ignorantly afraid of ‘Landmark status’ even though we tried to persuade them with experts in Church preservation, Engineers & Architects and myself, as an Attorney, to explain the great help they would have in obtaining Landmark status. They could have received State, City, Federal and private grants to restore the Church!”

How about trying this, for a change: instead of being busy-bodies, why don’t the good folks at BIG dig into their own pockets and help out this congregation, if they love the steeples that much? How about organizing a fundraiser? How about getting local youths to pitch in to repair the church?

benson,
there are so many congregations in the city and upstate that are struggling financially and trying to cope with increased maintenance cost and decreasing numbers of worshipers. If every cash-poor church decided to tear down their steeples, or flatten their roofs, or sell the stained glass, there would not be many historic churches left. The crucial thing is that the folks using the church reach out for help and actually have a desire to repair their historic building. I bet you dollars to donuts that this pastor and this congregation do not wish to spend any funds on their current church building because it is “old”. Instead they probably wish to build a new church. And that is perfectly alright but they should not pretend that they are in some special situation unknown to the majority of other church communities throughout the state. Where there’s a will there’s a way.

The landmarking of sacred sites is always tricky. On the one hand, I understand what jester is saying, and the arrogance of some people, and I’m not saying these particular people are arrogant, either, can be grating, and often very paternalistic. And, a church’s mission is to its community and flock, not solely to the upkeep of its building. Money is tight, and in poorer neighborhoods, soup kitchens vs steeples really is a no brainer.

That said, the preservation of those sacred sites IS important. They are a tangible record of a community’s growth and history, sprititual and secular, and often are the finest physical representation of that community’s sacrifice and hard work. The inherent beauty of some of these houses of worship cannot be denied, and should not be easily discarded. Whether the work of a famous or particularly great architect, or the humble work of parishoners, great thought should be taken in deciding whether or not to save these buildings. I am always saddened to hear of the destruction of a sacred building.

I tend to think the above mentioned engineers, architects and attorneys were thinking more about saving the building, not getting rich. Trust me, there is no big money in this for anyone, and they would more than likely be volunteering their services. They MAY have not been thinking of what it would cost the congregation, or how the congregation would come up with the money, and there is probably a dose of paternalism there, but unless I read otherwise, I tend to feel that they were only trying to help preserve a unique building.

Sounds disingenuous, saying that repair is beyond their means, since they didn’t try to raise money or apply for grants. The Landmarks Conservancy (NOT the LPC) has a program just for this sort of situation called “Sacred Sites”. It really does seem like there are other motives involved (landmarking would get in the way if they want to knock it down for new construction or sell it to a developer)…or they just don’t want to bother?

As IJ just said, there are far more important things for a church to be doing than to be preserving eye-candy for non-worshipers. Speaking as a Roman Catholic (I’ll limit myself to what I know), the Church has had to withdraw from its work in health (there is not a single RC hospital left in NYC) and schools (huge numbers of parochial schools have been closed). I’ll be damned if non-worshipers are going to dictate that the Church spends its resources on the preservation of every old church, for the sake of those who wish to build adult disneylands. If we’re talking about St. Patrick’s Cathedral, that is one thing. That is not the case here.

There are certainly many sacred sites that are in danger today, mostly from a lack of funding from congregations who are either unable or unwilling to maintain their aging buildings. According to the article, it will cost almost $100K to take down the towers. It is a wooden structure, I wonder how much more it would have been to restore them. Also, if preventive mainteance had been done over the past few decades, like maybe a coat of paint, this decision would probably not have to be made. The landscape of Brooklyn changes again, and not in a good way.

This thread has devolved rather quickly.
This little church is cute but it is no major architectural monument. Nonetheless, had the congregation wanted to restore it they could have pursued several avenues and I’m sure done very well.
I find infinite jesters post really shocking. This is a church we are talking about. You really should show a little respect and some control of language.

Minard, modern construction has advanced considerably in the past 142 years. I WOULD like to see a church completely reinvent its building. That would be some kind of awesome case study. People who think they know, never know.

The only safe anwser – let them decide for themselves. Free action, unfettered by interlopers. The American way.

What is a church’s mission? Preserve a structure and be a museum, or alter the brutal facts of life for people in a positive way? I bet half the community has no idea about any of the supposed historic nature of this place.

……that brick building to the right of the church complex was the former site of a now-defunct restaurant chain called “Beefsteak Charlie’s”. I don’t remember the exact price, but for something like $9.99 pp you would get steak, a salad bar (including unlimited shrimp) and unlimited sangria. Thirty-five years ago, a poor Benson used to take the future Mrs. Benson there for special dates. I was showing her a night on the town. A salad bar!! Unlimited shrimps!!! Sangria!!!!

I agree that half the community or more is probably unaware of the historic nature of this structure and that doesn’t speak to well of the neighborhood. Brooklyn continues to lose historic sites all the time. In particular this neighborhood, Sheepshead Bay that once looked more like Ditmas Park and Prospect Park South, has lost its charm because most of the neighborhhod bulldozed their Victorian mansions and put up craptacular brick boxes. So instead of pastoral blocks filled with one family Victorian mansions, you have instead streets crowded with multifamily brick boxes built in the 1970′s. This will be one more scar for the neighborhood.

Oh yes, it is. Maybe not to you, but it is important. Church buildings are more than simple “eye-candy”. As a Catholic, you know that. They are a tangible representation of God’s house. It’s where people of any faith go to worship, thank, and petition their creator. Yes, you can do that in a shack, or on a beach, but we have chosen to do it in buildings especially built to honor God.

The Church’s decision to abandon hospitals has absolutely NOTHING to do with the upkeep of its churches. Were that so, they wouldn’t be closing them, selling them, or in the cases of Our Lady of Loreto, or that church in Vinegar Hill that was demolished a couple of years ago, looking to tear them down.Every Catholic church in the world would be gleaming and looking brand new. That is certainly not the case. That’s a red herring of the largest and smelliest kind.

And “Disney World”? If ANYONE else on this site had used those words to describe a church, or the Catholic church, specifically, you’d have gone up in flames. I guess if it is in regards to preservation, and preserving a building that YOU don’t think has merit, because it’s not St. Patrick’s, well then, no problem.

My use of the term “eye-candy” and “adult disneyworld” were intended to represent what these buildings are to NON-believers. I suggest that you re-read my post with that understanding.

I’ve said my piece. If the preservationist movement wants to over-reach once again and try to tell churches how they should run their affairs, be my guest. History shows what happens to movements that over-reach. Have at it!

Not surprisingly I am agreeing with MM and minard. Churches and synagogues created as architectural renditions of their respective religious teachings. Many communities worked and saved to build churches they felt worthy of worshiping G-d in.They were embued with meaning. As far as the RC- perhaps if the Vatican cared more about its parishes, more of the billions they keep in Rome could be spent elsewhere, on better things than expensive papal robes and expensive art.

As for this comment: “My use of the term “eye-candy” and “adult disneyworld” were intended to represent what these buildings are to NON-believers. ”

“why don’t the good folks at BIG dig into their own pockets and help out this congregation, if they love the steeples that much? How about organizing a fundraiser? How about getting local youths to pitch in to repair the church?”

People on this thread who would like to encourage the church to preserve the steeples are simply expressing a point-of-view. Being a busybody would mean that I could actually prevent them from doing what they want to do. I don’t know the folks at BIG but they obviously CANNOT dictate, only bring attention to the situation. Sounds like they simply were hoping to assist the congregation in figuring out a plan–and were dismissed. Anti-preservation people here get so worked up when anyone even suggests that there is some value in preserving historic structures.

IJ- Yes, there will be some people who do look at it that way, but not everyone. And not most preservationists- the desire to preserve wonderful old buildings and neighborhoods is about preserving a sense of place and community.People underestimate the effects of our visual environment- I think it’s extremely important.

I wouldn’t mind attending a service with the Plusas. I’ve probably been to more church services in my life than synagogues and I can appreciate the dignity and meaning of the services and the churches, even if not of my own faith.

OK let me stand up for the Catholic Church and open up a can of worms. Firstly, the Catholic Church is one of if not the largest charitable organizations in the world. Unfortunately many Catholic Churches are in varying states of disrepair because of rising costs of maintaining aging structures and changing demographics. I’m more than a little tired of the anti-Catholic bias on display here and let’s give up the b/s about what the Vatican can do with their money. Much of it goes to fund charities around the world and fight epidemics like AIDS. And what should we do, let all the churches fall down and sell the art, what does that accomplish. Preserving these works of art for future generations is a responsibility that we all must share. OK, let the attack begin.

A point of view is fine – calling the church people “ignorant” and bemoaning to the press that “I’m an attorney and they turned down my totally selfless offer of help! The nerve!” is total BS. And bringing up something from the early 90s – bitter much? Talk about nursing a grudge.

The steeples are unsafe and nonessential to worship – let them be gone. It’s not like they want to convert to Brutalist-style of architecture.

You can preserve a building better and more easily when it’s non-landmarked, IMO. You can add green energy cells on the roof and save money. you can switch from oil to natural gas and install the necessary components. And on and on.

Landmarking does not magically confer eternal life, only eternal legalism for the church members.

2. As mentioned, the advantage of being landmarked is that there is more access to funds for renovation. Of course that needs to be balanced with other factors. But considering that these are very small congregations, it could be an essential source of funds.

3. I don’t think BIG could have started fundraising or setting up any kind of program without the approval of the congregations. Do you? (I do agree that “ignorant” is a pretty aggressive use of language. Like much of what shows up on these kinds of threads, btw.)

4. Sometimes I just love things. Like this little church. I even got a kick out of the Russo signs.

5. The pastor sounds open to accepting a large donation from an angel of the more pedestrian sort. So a nice outcome would be if the publicity helps to bring that about. It DID happen in the East Village at St. Brigids and that was for 20 MILLION!

“And what should we do, let all the churches fall down and sell the art, what does that accomplish. Preserving these works of art for future generations is a responsibility that we all must share.” I would add architecture.

But there isn’t an anti-Catholic bias here. My point was to counter those arguments that say let the churches fall down. And yet here you are, saying the same thing I was. You’re expressing a dual responsibility for the RC- its works and its preservation of great art (and architecture)as a responsibility. I agree with that.

Some people here are all too quick to claim anti-RC prejudice, but have no problem showing their own. I can ask questions without being biased against the Church. On the other hand, BIG’s ignorant comment was very unprofessional and certainly did nothing for their cause.

“It really does seem like there are other motives involved (landmarking would get in the way if they want to knock it down for new construction or sell it to a developer)…or they just don’t want to bother?”

Yes, it is more difficult. Like I said. A church preserves itself in baby steps. If every baby step comes with a mountain of paperwork and this much abuse from people not involved, then why would any church do it? Answer: they wouldn’t. That’s why BIG disgusts me so.

My original point remains. BIG pointed the accusatory finger in the media, without merit. They got people to question the motives of a congregation and paint them as not caring about their own church. That is wrong. Simple as that. They lose in my book.

Now I’m going to Cranberry Deli for a salami sandwich. They are delicious.

I was speculating. I don’t know what he is thinking. The lack of exploration of options just seems odd when it is also pretty costly to take them down.

But what does that have to do with the whole busybody thing? Okay, if you want to talk about “good faith” how does that apply to a discussion on Brownstoner? Must we refrain from making a comment that explores the possibility that there is more to a statement than meets the eyes?

What about the accusations above of greed on the part of BIG. Should those comments be deleted because they are not “in good faith”? Seems like the same thing.

What “lack of exploration of options”? How do you know? The pastor said the steeples are leaning and unsafe. Why is what BIG says automatically true, and what the pastor says automatically suspicious?

The Daily News article quotes the pastor as saying they would like to rebuild the steeples. But they can’t afford to right now. but they are unsafe. So they might have to come down. Seems like an adult, difficult decision. Best of luck to them. Everyone else, stay out of it.

“The maximum grant amount for the Sacred Sites Fund is $10,000. In the most recent, January 2010 grant round, Sacred Sites grants averaged about $3,000, and we project similar grant averages through 2011. No grant shall exceed half the project cost.”

How far would $3,000 (or $6,000, assuming the congregation would supply half the project cost) go toward restoring those steeples?

My bet is that the pastor is lying. The little steeples could probably be stabilized for 30 to 40 thousand dollars. They are not large or scary. He wants a new concrete church, I’m telling you. Check back next year as see if a) the steeples are fine and pastor is gone. b) the whole church is demolished and the pastor is raising money for the new church.

There are some larger grants. But yes, it is just one part of the puzzle. Additional grants from other orgs, loans, fundraising, etc. would be needed. Still think Sacred Sites is a good program because they also provide technical know-how and other forms of support and have lots of experience in this area…

* Church of the Most Precious Blood, Long Island City, $40,000 for Masonry Restoration and Roof Replacement
* Trinity Lutheran Church, Long Island City, $30,000 for Roof & Masonry Restoration
* Presbyterian Church of Rensselaerville, Rensselaerville, $35,000 for Stabilization and Restoration of Steeple”

Minard, that is a terrible thing to say. How dare you write something like that? Based on what do you say he is lying and that he wants to raze the place? Your longtime intuition? Do you know anything about church finances and this type of thing? I am totally shocked because you are normally a rational poster. Clearly you have a grudge against churches or something. What part of the pastor’s statement sounds fishy?

infinite jester, your posts make it sound like you have never even belonged to a church. Here’s a newsflash: pastors and rectors and priests lie (or wildly exaggerate) to their flocks all the time in order to get their way.
Repairing the mini-steeples would cost probably about $40,000. Building a new church/parsonage probably 4 million.
He wants the latter. It is pretty obvious.

We’ve been here before. The same exact thing happened with the so-called Green Church in Bay Ridge. Pastor called a fraud and a sell-out, without a shred of evidence. If a leading light like Minard can breezily make such a statement, we have reached the fever swamps.

As I said at that time: one can often sense the intellectual bankruptcy of a movement by the shrillness of its rhetoric.

jester Why do you read and post on a blog like this when you are so anti-preservation and anti-landmarks? The whole idea behind brownstoner is the love of old buildings.
If you really are on your church board you should try cleaning up your vocabulary.

Minard, I’m defending a church against the jump-to-conclusions people, of which you are one. My argument hasn’t changed all day – no one understands what this church understands, but everyone feels they have an inside track into what is “really” going on.

Telling me my language is inappropriate? You just accused the entire pastoral profession of lying to their congregants for monetary gain. That is obscene! How dare you post such lies? How dare you?

Wow. Minard, I don’t usually post, but I feel compelled to address some of the comments you have just made. I believe that preserving old buildings is an important goal for our society, and for that reason I often agree with the opinions you post here. But I think you are way off base imputing the stereo-type of money-grabbing pastors or priests (of which there are of course many actual examples) to the leader of this congregation without any reason. If this church is at all similar to the small churches I have attended and been a member of during my life, the pastor is likely a hard working, well intentioned person, and it would be very difficult for them to raise $40,000 to fix the building’s steeples, let alone $4 million for a new facility. And it is a serious question whether fixing steeples would be a worthwhile use of the funds if they were able to raise them.

The religious buildings in this City and the country as a whole were all built at a time when more people went to church and contributed a much greater portion of their income to the church. Churches were the center of community life in a way they are not now, and the congregations felt it was a good use of their hard earned income to build structures to the glory of God that reflected the strength of their faith. Just because many Christians and other religious people no longer feel that this is the best way to act on their faith does not mean that they are greedy or lazy. Quite the contrary.

You are imposing a cartoon stereo-type of modern mega-churches and their leaders (most of which are in sub-urbs and look like malls) on a small church in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn. I can almost guarantee that neither the pastor of this church or the members of this congregation have any interest in undertaking a project to build themselves a mega-church-like structure costing millions of dollars. They’re foremost interest here is avoiding being sued when a piece of masonry falls off the roof of their church and hits someone and puts the congregation in even worse financial straights than they already are. I also bet that they would love to be able to keep the steeples of their church, but don’t see a viable way to do so. It’s possible they aren’t being as proactive as they could be in finding grants and other resources, but if you feel that way, you should join the congregation and help them. And in general, if you (and Montrose, too) feel so strongly about preserving historic houses of worship, I certainly hope you are members somewhere and doing your part. Otherwise, you don’t have much credibility on this issue.

I don’t think accusing the members and leader of a small church in our community of the things you have accused them of is helpful or appropriate, regardless of how passionate you feel about historic preservation.

I think that Peter18′s post is very thoughtful and gives a clear and sympathetic view of the churches situation. I am also quite sympathetic with Jester, who clearly is involved with making the complicated and difficult decisions involved with the disbursement of funds for church maintenance as part of his role in his own church. While I certainly understand the points that MM and Bxgrl made about the value of the beautiful, sacramental art and architecture to a congregation and community, I think that this community has certain tough decisions to be made and that their priority, when it comes down to the tough decisions, has to be the safety of the community, the protection of their own church from liability, and the survival not of the structure but of themselves as a spiritual community. I thought that the tone of the article was disrespectful and I find Minard’s comments implying that the pastor was dishonest way off the mark.
The article also states that the community has shrunk to 100 elderly people.

Also for the record, I do not agree with my friend Minard on this, but he is entitled to his opinion, and everyone else is also entitled to disagree. He is quite able to take his lumps, and give them, as well. It is, however, quite a stretch to go from one man’s opinion to labelling every preservationist, or the movement itself, as “intellectually bankrupt”, the same tired old screed certain people bring up every single time. Preservation is important. Finding a way to preserve the past should at least be a consideration in cases like this. If it cannot be done, and no outside source is able to step in and pay for it, then there’s not much we can do, and that is a shame. Most preservationists feel that the effort should at least be made to see if it is possible, and tearing something down, whether a church, its steeple, a home, or any other kind of viable and salvageable building, should be the last resort.